IMDb's policy is transphobic and harmful and it needs to change

I understand that IMDb wishes to remain accurate, but their current policy most certainly needs to be changed, as it can be dangerous to some actors. As an actor, I believe that an actor’s feelings should come before “accuracy.” Actors are real people with real feelings and real experiences.Transgender actors exist, as do actors who have suffered an abusive past.

I can understand connecting “typos” to the same name, as I wouldn’t care so much if I was connected to “Rory Roach” or “Rory Roache,” etc. However, the name in question, which I will NOT be typing again because the very sight of it makes me PHYSICALLY ILL, is from a part of my life that in keeping it plastered on my IMDb credits, puts me in great danger. I will not and should not have to explain my personal life in order to have this name removed. I simply expect this request to be understood. I’ll explain in more detail.

As I said, transgender actors exist. Some, in fact, have acted since before coming out as transgender, and some have been out since before IMDb even existed. That said, transgender people face many dangers. Forcing them to be known as a name that they don’t associate with could out them and in turn, result in their murder. Your policy forces this, and therefore, in that case, should be held responsible for any murder committed because of this. I’m sure you don’t want that. Furthermore, it can and does cause them harm to see a name they never wanted in the first place.

As for abuse survivors, forcing this alternate name could result in the actor’s abuser finding them and causing more harm. Do you wish to cause harm to the actor?

I’ve been more than patient with this issue. I’ve expressed how seeing this name, attributed to a very bad part of my life, makes me feel. I understand you wish to give accurate information, but it will not hurt someone to be a little confused by different credits. It does, however, hurt me greatly every single time I see this name.

I’ve offered the solution of deleting, but as I had to fight tooth and nail for a credit in the first place, from abusive directors, I’ve opted to keep my credit. However, the solution now is to mark it uncredited. Accept this solution. This is no longer a request. You are hurting me and I believe that my feelings and my health come before “accuracy.” The “alternate name” is no longer connected to any existing human, and certainly not to me, so in truth, regardless of film credit, your forceful policy is creating the largest inaccuracy. This alternate name does not exist. Listing me as [uncredited] is a solution for both of us. The alternate name doesn’t exist, and Rory J. Roche did not receive credits despite participating in the film. I’ve already expressed that Savior never made it to DVD, so I cannot provide “proof” of any credit.

I also deleted credits that I do not want. I want nothing to do with the three credits due to personal trauma to do with the show. Things happened that I do not need to discuss, but I do not want to be known for these things.

Please reconsider your policy, and make it safe for actors that do not fit into your tiny boxes. And while you’re at it, please add more genders to the list. Not everyone is male or female. Intersex people exist. Transgender, nonbinary, genderfluid, and agender actors exist. If you’re confused about a pronoun to use, provide a slot in which the actor in question can tell you their pronoun. Simple.

Thank you, Rory J. Roche

This is what I had posted to IMDb support. They accepted the change to uncredited, however, they have since changed it back to a name that I do not associate with and it's sickening. I am absolutely sick of this battle. I only want to be credited as Rory J. Roche, or uncredited, or simply not credited at all. Their constant issue with this is transphobic and disgusting. At this point, it is harassment. They're forcing me to use a name that isn't mine. They need to fix this and they need to make it more trans friendly. The actor and their feelings/health/safety should come before "accuracy."

Everyone should be respected. IMDB step your game up. Trans people exist and have feelings just like you. Imagine if this was your family or child. Get over yourself and give trans people the respect they deserve!

Unfortunately, IMDb is a database which covers factual information about films and people involved. If you were credited by this name in your previous works, then filmography should display that. Likely the name could have been added by people who have seen the film, discovered the difference in the credits and did the right thing by correcting the listings according to the credits. However if you were not listed by that name on any title, that should indeed be removed and "(uncredited)" attribute should be instated.

IMDb's policy is not in any way transphobic. It is quite progressive. It's just that IMDb collects factual information, which should be preserved, because it is plastered all over the film. Even if changed, it will eventually be corrected by someone, because movies are watched and people are re-checking end credits from time to time. A good example of a transgender person's page (in my humble opinion) is Alexis Arquette.

That said, there are indeed problems with that. I won't pretend that I have full understanding of such situations, but I will try to help in any way I can.

Oh really? I recently went to look up Kinley Mochrie and noticed how she was labeled an 'actor' and had he/him pronouns used on here and felt that using her deadname was all right. How is that progressive or acceptable?

Trying to update Mochrie's page now to change the gender to "Actress" with "He" and "Him" changed to "She" and "Her". Trivia section seems to be intact with the right gender. It will hopefully change in 48 hours or less if nothing gets in the way. If you know of any more such cases I encourage you to submit information here or correct it yourself which is done by pressing "Edit Page", choosing a field of "Gender" and then correcting one by unticking "Male" and ticking "Female" plus providing the explanation in "Miscellaneous Comments".

As for that concept of a "deadname" - I have already said what is the problem here. If the person was credited under that name in the credits, it should be indicated in the IMDb listings. Otherwise it would create a mess and a constant edit war between users who will try to update the listings according to what end credits say and it will be constant, because there are a lot of users like me who do casual updates re-checking the end credits and there is no way to have everyone informed that a single person out of a few millions listed on database shouldn't have alternate name listed. Making some people having more rights then the others in that field is not very acceptable and progressive either.

In case of Rory, by the way, that name is seen all over the official site of hers on the cover of the novel she wrote. I don't see how IMDb listings are endangering and disrespectful while official site is not. Then again, I have never been in the situation myself so I'm not trying to pretend I have a full understanding of it. In order to have such IMDb should probably consult transgender people specifically.

Although I have no problem whatsoever with transgender people, I do agree with Nikolay that if you were credited under a particular name, regardless of the reason for the past or present use of another name, then you should remain listed as having been credited under that name. Rory, I do understand your concerns, but a balance has to be found between those concerns that many transgender people have vs. the public's right to know the connection between a credit and who had the part.

There are some cases where a transgender person would have a justification for not having their birth name posted - such as if they had no pre-transition credits and do not want to be outed (IMDb does not normally remove information like that upon request, but since their policy is also not to post information about one's sexuality or medical history, you'd have a tangible case there since your old name would merely be trivial and not necessary to identify what you've done). However, if work under your birth gender is already an integral part of your filmography, then it should stay for reasons that have been mentioned.

ETA: In case you're wondering, IMDb does not split a person's filmography up either for any reason.

It's the same as with any other kind of employment - you cannot leave out pre-transition parts of your work history (if asked) without risking it being construed as a misrepresentation, even if you don't want to be associated with your birth gender/name anymore.

Firstly, I didn't ask for the opinion of cis people. I gave you a suggestion to make the policy better and safer for everyone. Cis people wouldn't understand what it's like because they've never experienced it. Secondly, you don't get to determine what is or is not transphobic. You've proven with your language that you and your policy is transphobic. My imdb itself refers to me as an actor and uses they pronouns but you went ahead to call me "she" which is rude and disrespectful and guess what? TRANSPHOBIC. The book you mentions isn't even out anymore for the same reason but your stupid site is being so difficult that I didn't get the dead link taken down yet.

It really wouldn't kill you to make it so that an actor doesn't need to have credits they don't want. It could kill them though. You could even make it so that an actor can opt that only people they give permission to can alter their credits. Why should a random stranger be able to? That's dangerous! People are sick. People make things up. People start rumors. If you're not going to fix this, take me off imdb altogether because I want absolutely nothing to do with such a willingly transphobic company.

Rory - MANY people in the entertainment industry, for many different reasons, have asked IMDb to remove their credits. I do not know of any cases where IMDb has removed a factually correct credit associated with a publicly released work due to personally not wanting to be associated with it. All these cases include among others those who once worked in the porn industry, films that they now disagree with for political or other reasons, directors they didn't liked, and transgender people like you.

We have even had an actress sue IMDb in court to remove her date of birth because of age discrimination. Guess who won? Not her. To counteract that California has even tried passing a law forcing sites like IMDb to remove ages or dates of birth upon request. IMDb is challenging that law, and while it's still pending, the court suspended enforcement of the law for now given its questionable constitutionality (in terms of free speech rights). That indicates about how much luck you'll probably have if you'd like to legally challenge this policy.

Credits can be updated and so can policies. The current policy willfully ignores how third parties can, and do, use information provided on the site to discriminate trans people in employment, housing, and their social life.

The policy is also at odds with Amazon's recent statement of support for the trans community. Amazon signed on a letter with other tech companies this fall, that said “What harms transgender people harms our companies.”

"You can never expect to achieve what you would like by being hostile to the powers that be"A good recipe for cowardice. Tell George Washinghton that. If Martin Luther King, or Ghandi had thought like that, we would still have separate lunch counters and drink fountains, and India would still be a colony of England. Regards, #TheResistanceIt's weird that IMDb prefers to have transgender people beaten up or worse, for the sake of "accuracy".Bet if it was about Jewish-Americans, it would be done. Do transgenders have to have six million of theirs killed too, before you listen? Or is the present number of 1000s getting beaten up or publicly humiliated enough?

In George Washington's case, he was the power that be. In Martin Luther King's case, he wasn't particularly hostile, and he had a lot of help from people belonging to the "majority group", thanks largely to not antagonizing the helpful ones. Likewise for Ghandi. Take care not to go around picking a fight with somebody is not explicitly against you.

Following on what I said when this topic was originally posted, the reason this transperson's birth name is shown is not to intentionally harm him, nor is it even done for trivial/biographical reasons. He is credited in publicly released works under that name, and since IMDb has a very strict policy about not deleting factual credits or splitting a person's filmography for reasons of not misleading the public into thinking the works are done by two different people, those credits under his former name should stay. If anything, creating a carve-out here for transgender people is not fair to those who may want their filmography redacted or split for other reasons.

ETA1: Your analogy of racial segregation fails because there black people were wanting the same rights as whites, no more and no less. This transperson wants IMDb to create a special exemption to its credit rules.

ETA2: I agree that a transperson's birth name should not be publicized or asked for when it is not relevant to the issue in question (same thing about their surgical status, etc.). Rory's case on IMDb is different because the old name is relevant since he had been credited under it. In the context of IMDb, an example where the birth name would not be relevant would be a transperson whose filmography entirely postdates their social transition (and there I agree that the birth name should not be mentioned in the biography unless it's already "common knowledge" to the public since then there's no practical need to know the name to identify credits unlike in this discussion's case).

ETA3: Notice that I am not transphobic (e.g. I refer to Rory using the pronouns of the gender he identifies with), but a balance needs to exist with not "deadnaming" a transperson for an inappropriate or no reason vs. mentioning the name to properly identify what they've worked on.

Quite frankly, it is surprising that the topic was not deleted or archived with expediency. Perhaps a sort of nullification was and remains afoot.
Nikolay Yeriomin is a forum administrator, by the way, and he replied almost immediately. Notice the remark, "I didn't ask for the opinion of cis people", from the creator of this topic? That right there kind of shutdown all reasonable dialog on the matter. Two can play that game, so to speak. Whatever.

It's been almost a year, and IMDb has not updated this policy. What's going on? Revealing trans people’s deadnames by listing it in the birth name section or in the case of credits, like Current Name (as Deadname), puts them at risk for discrimination in the film industry, other day jobs, housing, and their social life in general. IMDb is one of top google results for most people.

I realize that IMDb has a policy to publish and maintain “factual information,” but IMDb needs to take responsibility for how their service affects people for the rest of their lives. Many of the credits that get listed on IMDb are small projects, like youtube videos and student projects, which don’t really reflect someone’s professional work history. According to your system, a young person who volunteers as a PA or background actor, works on a student project, or youtube video, should be punished for the rest of their life, if someone happened to deadname them in the credits.

Similarly, publishing people’s deadnames in the “birth name” section of your site puts them at risk. IMDb assists third parties in discrimination, and it punishes trans people for sharing their experiences with the world through productions like Orange is the New Black, Pose, Transparent, and many smaller projects. The majority of trans people listed in your database are not celebrities known to the general public before transition, such as Caitlyn Jenner.

Until about a month or two ago, IMDb also had a policy that said, "We generally use people’s biological or surgically reassigned gender” to determine the designation of gender specific titles, like actor or actress. I saw that you changed this policy, after it was pointed out that it was at odds with Amazon’s own corporate stance. Amazon signed a letter in support of the trans community, following the legal erasure of trans people in the United States this past fall. IMDb, as a part of Amazon, needs to take responsibility for how the site affects the trans community. You can’t take credit for supporting the community, while ignoring the harm that your services cause.

There are simple solutions to this issue, such as allowing trans people under certain circumstances to update credits and/or the splitting of IMDb pages in limited cases. Additionally, there is no purpose, beyond selling gossip, in publishing trans people’s deadname in the “birth name” category of the site. This situation isn’t like actors who happen to take on a stage name or a maiden name.

IMDb shows indifference to the trans community through several policies. One of the most troubling examples of this pattern is the deadnaming—using the name assigned at birth—of trans talent, crew, writers, producer, directors, etc. IMDb deadnames people through two separate methods.

In the first, IMDb lists the “birth name” of people in the biography section of the site, and I can easily find examples of trans celebrities who are currently being burned this way. Listing the deadnames of trans people this way serves little purpose,
other than selling gossip, at the expense of trans people. This
situation isn't like actors who previously used a maiden name, or happen
to have taken on a stage name.

In the second, IMDb insists on listing credits as “Current Name (as Deadname),” if the person previously received an IMDb credit under their deadname. Some might say that if a person previously received a credit, this credit should stand, so that people can track a person over the course of their career. This thread ignores how the majority of trans people listed on IMDb are not celebrities who were known to the general public before transition, like Caitlyn Jenner. IMDb significantly lowered the bar for what qualifies for a listing over the years, and now, many of the listed projects are web videos, hopeful student projects, short films, and projects that never screen.

The majority of people listed on IMDb are working class people who are fighting for employment in the industry, and IMDb’s method of deadnaming trans people assists third parties in discrimination in the film/tv industry, other day jobs, housing, and their social life. IMDb is one of the top google results for most people. IMDb would punish a young person for the rest of their life for volunteering as a PA, background actor, student project, or web video through deadnaming them.

This could easily be solved by 1. allowing trans people to update their credits under certain circumstances and/or 2. allowing trans people to “split” IMDb pages in limited circumstances. Credits can be updated, and so can policies.

Until about a month or two ago, IMDb also had a policy that said, "We generally use people’s biological or surgically reassigned gender” to determine the designation of gender specific titles, like actor or actress. I noticed that this changed after it was pointed out that the policy was at odds with the corporate stance of Amazon, IMDb’s parent company. Amazon, along with other tech companies, signed on a letter of support for the trans community, after the legal erasure of trans people this past fall. While IMDb changed the wording of this policy, they still misgender non-binary actors who do not fit into “actor” or “actress.” This could easily be solved by creating a single category of “actor” for all performers.

Not wrong.This is not a democracy.You are .6% of world population.You are not even in a majority in a democracy!There are for more pressing things in life.And think about this........are you more entitled to alteration here than you would be if this was "The Washington Post", or CNN?

Dignity is what one person extends to another. Hiding things or not disclosing things is undignified. Dignity is garnered when one is 100% honest to another.This is why this is not pressing. You are asking for another person (Or IMDb) to leave out a truth. Omitting the truth is no more than a lie by another name.IE: Undignified.

The problem is that unprecedentedly militant gender anarchists (who have created nonsensical gender categories like "intersex", "genderfluid" and "agender", and even more ridiculous new pronouns) demanding the world cater to a tiny group of people who comprise fewer than 1% of the world's population has gotten so hooked on the political clout accorded from the media, Hollywood, Broadway, academia, etc. A generation of people has already been indoctrinated to believe that an infinitesimal percentage of the population is actually a massive alternate population of underdogs, despite the fact that the LGBTQ+++++ cartel is the most powerful, influential, and affluent special interest group in the United States, the most powerful country (until now anyway), in the history of the world.

They are not underdogs but OVERLORDS, who have the power to extort concessions and force businesses and cities and states to do their bidding by having their minions threaten economic boycotts over bathrooms and locker-rooms and, as noted on another thread, rewritten birth certificates and school curriculum manipulation. IMDb probably should re-consult its legal department given the relentless litigiousness these days.

I keep hearing about "health" and "danger" but do not understand how IMDb articles pose such threats and I would like a valid answer not obnoxious arrogant agitprop like the examples below:

a) TheMelancholicAlcoholic: "Bet if it was about Jewish-Americans, it would be done. Do transgenders have to have six million of theirs killed too, before you listen? Or is the present number of 1000s getting beaten up or publicly humiliated enough?" -- ANSWER: What does IMDb have to do with any of that, and the antisemitic language is dangerous and offensive to me so I demand you delete instantly. (This is what I would say if I had a chip on my shoulder the size of the Washington Monument)

b) Rory Roche: "Firstly, I didn't ask for the opinion of cis people. I gave you a suggestion to make the policy better and safer for everyone. Cis people wouldn't understand what it's like because they've never experienced it. Secondly, you don't get to determine what is or is not transphobic." -- ANSWER: Ummm, YES WE CAN (to paraphrase Barack Obama), because WE comprise 99% of the world's population, and -- your affluence, dudgeon, and clout notwithstanding -- WE fund society and keep it functioning through our work and taxes so people can make and see plays and films and documentaries and television programs, which all disproportionately feature the 1% as though they were some sort of hidden majority or abused minority. And while the terms health and danger keep getting trotted out, almost all of those who are being assaulted or victimized by hate crimes these days are Republicans, conservatives, pro-lifers, etc.

I DO, HOWEVER, HAVE A SOLUTION :: Anyone who dislikes their IMDb page so much should be free to request (in a notarized letter sent via snail mail) that such page(s) be removed from IMDb. Then the transgender, intersex, genderfluid, agender community can create its own database with no pesky cis staffers and with their own new pronouns and avoiding the thoughtcrime they keep trying so hard to extirpate. Trust me, Google will bend over backwards (pardon the expression) to help.

Otherwise, unless everyone can freely self-edit their own pages or pages in general (as on Wikipedia), then nobody should be able to do so. Everyone knows Chelsea Manning was formerly Bradley Manning and Caitlin Jenner was once Bruce Jenner. There is no way IMDb could know the birth-names of people who have legally changed their names unless independent data, i.e. prior credits or other reliable sources. IMDb is far TOO slow and unwilling to update or change data as it is -- given the edits I already keep having to resubmit -- to add the above-referenced birth names ("deadnames") and other apparently offensive material unless those names ALREADY EXISTED somewhere else online. No hierarchies and no trigger warnings and no revisionism. We are all free to reinvent ourselves but no one owes anyone anything.

“They are not underdogs but OVERLORDS”
It might seem like that to you, since you seem like someone who would like us to not exist and thinks our identities are fake. We gained *some* acceptance in the media, but in America we’re controlling none of the politics. Media is not going to give us rights or anything. Politicians are still not granting us the rights we need to live without struggle and they’re even rolling it back. They’re pulling some real nazi methods on trans people right now. They’Re stripping us of more and more rights until it is legal to do whatever to us. But sure, we’re overlords.

I also love how you completely contradict your point that we’re powerful by saying you’re the majority of the population and you make the rules.

What was that about antisemitism and how you’d only denounce it if there was “a giant chip on your shoulder”? What does that even mean.

Hi, Rob Sieger. You make some interesting points, but it seems that you need to be made aware that "intersex" refers to in some general way to people that include people historically referred to as "hermaphrodites" (which involves a chromosomal and thereby physical abnormality that places a person between or in both sexes), so even though the word "intersex" is a new one, the concept is not, and it sort of has little to do with the gender pronoun fiasco, apart from the fact that somebody physically could be both a "he" and a "she".

Kati. You have lost the debate and any support you may have garnered by your lack of skills in rebutting a statement and defending your point of view.Please quit while your behind.Further replies as you are framing them only solidifies what has been stated by many other here.

You are never going to sway anyone here or at IMDb.

For your own sanity and well being, move along please.

Further replies could be misinterpreted as trying to agitate rather than trying to inform.

Read all the replies above. You have lots sympathy, but no real support.Your replies are repetitive and have no further information to provide.If, and if I missed it I'm sorry, but you have little to zero support here.You have been totally unconvincing in regard to your stated goal.To get IMDb to stop (And I dislike using this absolutely ridiculous word) deadnaming.This whole topic is a silly fiasco. It is a non-issue.And finally by saying that I completely ignored something is absurdity at it's best.That's proof positive of your failure.Move along to facebook, twitter, and wherever you can get soothing replies that stroke your ego.

Your recent replies have brought forth no new information and are doing nothing to sway anyone's thinking on the matter.You have lost the argument.Move on please.

Kati, as I stated that can be considered as inflammatory. Saying that one individual is a hater is not allowed here. You are stating nothing new and your replies as just witnessed are meant to incite. Not Inform.Please move alongThanksCheers

A convincing argument as to why we should do something for a transgender person that we would not do for a cisgender person has not been made.

Suppose there was somebody conceived having XY chromosome pair, developed normally in gestation, subsequently born and easily identified by qualified physicians as being male. But then the legal guardians assign a feminine name to this person for whatever reason and subsequently raise the child in as a "girl" and even talks the child into performing in numerous publications under the birth name thereof. But as the child gets older he feels that he is cisgender and masculine, thus demands to live as boy fully with the intention of becoming a man, and so he does. He either talks his legal guardians into changing his legal name before adulthood or he proceeds to do it himself upon emancipation or adulthood. Somehow he winds up back in a line of endeavor whereby his name is being published. Let it be clear, the policy that would apply to him would be the same as the policy being complained about here framed as if it is strictly a transgender issue. The policy is the same regardless of somebody being cisgender or transgender (or gender neutral, or gender ambiguous, or gender fluctuating, or gender chameleon, even gender "N/A"). It is the same. Capisce?

As for "harm", no particular individual, family, organization, charity, business, tribe or even state/regime is responsible for eliminating or even so much as mitigating harm for which he/she/it is not at all responsible.

"'They are not underdogs but OVERLORDS' It might seem like that to you, since you seem like someone who would like us to not exist and thinks our identities are fake. We gained *some* acceptance in the media, but in America we’re controlling none of the politics. Media is not going to give us rights or anything. Politicians are still not granting us the rights we need to live without struggle and they’re even rolling it back. They’re pulling some real nazi methods on trans people right now. They’Re stripping us of more and more rights until it is legal to do whatever to us. But sure, we’re overlords." -- LOL.

What USA are you living in, Kati? The one where whites, heterosexuals and Christians are not discriminated against, harassed, doxxed, calmunied, etc. The one in which Republicans, conservatives, pro-lifers and whites are not assaulted and attacked and discriminated against daily, evidently. You are detached from reality, Kati. Seek help.

I will clarify: a group; a family, a organization, a charity, a business, a tribe, a state or a regime is an "it". Any one of them can be referred to as some particular "they", but that would mean "they are" rather than "it is". Understand? Basic grammar, in the English language. I was not referring to a natural person at all. By the way, just as side note, for human fetuses, human embryos and human zygotes, a given one of them is often referred to as "it", and nobody seems to give enough of a damn to complain about that.

"I also love how you completely contradict your point that we’re powerful by saying you’re the majority of the population and you make the rules." -- MEA CULPA.

You are right. Allow me to clarify: the former is the truth politically, the latter demographically. My bad. Writing this stuff impromptu in the middle of the night is not easy and the truth can be complicated.

Emma Arpin notes, "Until about a month or two ago, IMDb also had a policy that said, 'We generally use people’s biological or surgically reassigned gender' to determine the designation of gender specific titles, like actor or actress. I noticed that this changed after it was pointed out that the policy was at odds with the corporate stance of Amazon, IMDb’s parent company."

Criminal or more especially unethical things happen to people of all colors, orientations and faiths. The justice system is supposed to react without discrimination on account of such human qualities, but sometimes that does not happen. In the United States, maybe not most countries; the victims ignored (sometimes hostilely ignored) by the justice system may form militias and independent media outlets to protect themselves or safely go their own way, which if things get to that point, it is indicative of societal controversy. Identity politics is poison, but we all have a vague idea of where it comes from and why it arises, basically all the time throughout history, all over the world.

Some bad things happen to white people sometimes, true. But that's not comparable to the institutional and social racism that people of colour face. Racism against white people is not a thing. I feel like this video could be for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfLa64_zLrU

Kati Knitt: "Some bad things happen to white people sometimes, true. But that's not comparable to the institutional and social racism that people of colour face."

COLOUR -- UK national, apparently (or maybe Australasian). And now we are talking about racism not transphobia. Tiresome identity politics. As a white nontrans man in the US, I can say without fear of contradiction that transpeople and people of color wield more political clout than the stick figure villains that whites have been turned into by the media, Hollywood, etc. The violence and racism of "people of color" is ignored by the mainstream media.

Ed is kind of bossy, but he does not have any administrative privileges in this forum, so he wouldn't be able to delete other participants' replies. Oddly, the people who do have the privileges rarely seem to delete these unintentional duplicates (caused by a bug in the forum software) that occur once in a while.

My philosophy on that issue might seem odd, but I when you're trying to persuade majority to continue ignore minorities you should actually think about one simple thing: minorities is an outdated concept in itself. We should stop dividing people into groups, no matter how large or small and treat them individually, case-to-case. Of course, for society that for centuries used simplified idiotism that leads to segregation, discrimination, and witch-hunting such ideas might seem to be to radical because they directly contradict our society's inherent vice of laziness and opposing changes. It's much easier to continue dividing people into groups and find some groups to oppose then actually confront yourself about the fact that differences are so scarce that effectively you might as well put yourself in the group and no one will notice.

It is very much ironic since adaptibility is what made people so widespread and our ability to somehow supress our natural instincts (instincts, which in many cases prevent rational thinking in the modern world) is perhaps our only truly unique feature as a species. People pathologically don't want to change. They don't want to change their habits, their vocabulary, they oppose changes at every direction and every corner, not understanding a simple thing: changes are inevitable.

Nikolay Yeriomin -- Thanks but you appear to have removed both. There is plenty Orwellian and dystopian about present-day United States, which is what I was referring to, and there are powerful special interest groups whose interests coincide with what the IMDb database was (apparently) created to compile.

I am not 100% sure what "but I when you're trying to persuade majority to continue ignore minorities you should actually think about one simple thing: minorities is an outdated concept in itself" means, but I certainly agree that we should not divide people. That is what identity politics does. That is what Rory Roche's opinions of cis people are an example of. And that is why "transphobia" and "diversity" manias are but the tip of the iceberg of the destructive and divisive dystopia in which the US finds itself.

And where exactly such example of behavior towards your situational enemy group came from?.. Of course minorities get angry and bitter overtime, turning to use exact same methods that opression does. I know because I am a minority in several different aspects: I have a diasbility, I am an internally dislocated person (a refugee but within one country) and I am also just plain too "weird" which in minds of too many people unties their hands and language in regards of harassment. That made me bitter and agressive towards anyone who tries to disregard other people's opinion. I hate to see that happen on both sides of any conflict. So far most of our society's attempts at fixing our problems is fighting fire with fire, which mostly doesn't work.

Faraday Speaks makes excellent points about the way radicalization via the Internet works and how halfway-informed identity politics exhibitionists and borderline fringe elements can be mistaken for "authority" by ordinary folks or others. In addition, he is right about how it may be a mistake for "progressives" and advocates of social "justice" to plainly write off conservatives, objectivists, libertarians and nationalists as foolish, delusional or insidious. On the other hand, he has not exactly clarified where he stands on the concept of cultural "authority", linguistic "authority", conceptual "authority", likewise dogma or so, and he may have set up two particular YouTube personas of the social "justice" advocacy flavor as substitute "authority", in the process of thanking them, and likely he owes them thanks in the context of guidance, but his presentation comes off as blind to the corruption that exists in the "left" regardless of how imperfect certain youthful pro-Trump loudmouths are.

What is electromagnetic induction?Electromagnetic induction is the process by which a current can be induced to flow due to a changing magnetic field.

In our article on the magnetic force
we looked at the force experienced by moving charges in a magnetic
field. The force on a current-carrying wire due to the electrons which
move within it when a magnetic field is present is a classic example.
This process also works in reverse. Either moving a wire through a
magnetic field or (equivalently) changing the strength of the magnetic
field over time can cause a current to flow.

How is this described?There are two key laws that describe electromagnetic induction:

Faraday's law, due to 19th century physicist Michael Faraday. This relates the rate of change of magnetic flux through a loop to the magnitude of the electro-motive force E\mathcal{E}E induced in the loop. The relationship isE=dΦdt\mathcal{E} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\Phi}{\mathrm{d}t}E=dt

dΦ​

The electromotive force or EMF refers to the potential difference across the unloaded
loop (i.e. when the resistance in the circuit is high). In practice it
is often sufficient to think of EMF as voltage since both voltage and
EMF are measured using the same unit, the volt. [Explain]The
take-away point here is that a wire moving in a field does not
necessarily represent an ideal voltage source; the voltage you might
measure with a high-impedance voltmeter would only equal the EMF if the
load is small.

Lenz's law is a consequence of conservation of energy applied to electromagnetic induction. It was formulated by Heinrich Lenz
in 1833. While Faraday's law tells us the magnitude of the EMF
produced, Lenz's law tells us the direction that current will flow. It
states that the direction is always such that it will oppose the change in flux which produced it. This means that any magnetic field produced by an induced current will be in the opposite direction to the change in the original field.Lenz's
law is typically incorporated into Faraday's law with a minus sign, the
inclusion of which allows the same coordinate system to be used for
both the flux and EMF. The result is sometimes called the Faraday-Lenz
law,E=−dΦdt\mathcal{E} = -\frac{\mathrm{d}\Phi}{\mathrm{d}t}E=−dt

dΦ​

In
practice we often deal with magnetic induction in multiple coils of
wire each of which contribute the same EMF. For this reason an
additional term NNNN representing the number of turns is often included, i.e.E=−NdΦdt\mathcal{E} = -N \frac{\mathrm{d}\Phi}{\mathrm{d}t}E=−Ndt

dΦ​

What is the connection between Faraday's law of induction and the magnetic force?While
the full theoretical underpinning of Faraday's law is quite complex, a
conceptual understanding of the direct connection to the magnetic force on a charged particle is relatively straightforward.

Please everyone.We have all stated our opinions on the matter. Continuing to engage Kati is counterproductive. We are not going to change her mind.She is not going to change our minds.She has nothing new to say.Let her post away to herself.She is SAYING NOTHING NEW!She is inciting others to reply with inflammatory remarks.We are better than that.Silence will eventually result in her disappearance.The sooner the better.Thanks all.Cheers.

It's not solely about and should not be solely about Kati, Ed. The bonus is that we can draw out "concerned citizens" who play identity politics that run contrary to the half-cocked half-truth narrative espoused by the mainstream media.

Kati says "Deadnaming is dangerous and leads to Dysphoria. Dysphoria can lead to death" -- Wrong, the opposite is the case. Sexual "dysphoria" (suffered by fewer than 1% of the population) is what leads to the desire to call one's birth name a "deadname" and demand it be written out of existence (even on birth certificates, retroactively) -- Orwell, anyone?

Your response is that we should just not be trans, so we wouldn't have this problem? That's not how it works. And dypshoria is not the reason people are trans. We don't choose this. Dysphoria is a condition that some trans people have. It's not the only reason deadnaming is wrong. But deadnaming can contribute to dysphoria.

No wars ever existed. The edited (Censored) Books say so. If we don't know what war is, how could we start one. Accidents never happen. So the world must be perfect. This very point was raised in the movie Minority Report . The perfect world is a fantasy.﻿Kati want's this perfect world that cannot happen due to societal constraints. Or does she want an Orwellian existence?One thing is for sure, her grasp on the big picture is not based in reality. Academia run amok.

"Your response is that we should just not be trans, so we wouldn't have this problem?" I'd imagine the answer to that is simply that there is no such response. So, is the confusion cleared up now, or what? If so, what is next?

Kati Knitt -- "Respecting trans people is an orwellian fantasy?" -- NO but rewriting science and changing the norms and punishing those who disagree (anyone heard of Brendan Eich?) and rewriting birth certificates are large steps towards Orwellian dystopia.

Kati Knitt -- "Respecting trans people is an orwellian fantasy?" -- NO but rewriting science and changing the norms and punishing those who disagree (anyone heard of Brendan Eich?) and rewriting birth certificates are large steps towards Orwellian dystopia.

I contend that hardly anybody actually ever believed the earth to be flat or structured in such a way that traveling in any direction for too great of a distance would lead to an edge of a bottomless pit. The perpetuation of the claim that older or ancient societies believed such a thing is largely a misconception in the educational systems or even an error in findings leading to the misconceptions. The notable antiquated disputes, at least in the context of Europe, were actually about the idea that all other celestial bodies in the universe revolved around planet earth, which they do not, and the size of the earth in regards to being able supply a sail ship with enough provisions to safely travel from Spain to India by sailing only in a non-westward direction.

I feel this thread trending in the direction of being a general philosophy topic. We may wind up covering psychology, geography, history, physiology, climatology, spirituality and metaphysics, all too arrive at a revealing agreement to disagree, multiple times. We will see.

Crash Davis
:
Well, I believe in the soul, the
c***, the p****, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball,
high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are
self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing
Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot,
s***-c*** p**********, opening your presents Christmas morning rather
than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses
that last three days.

They are 100% aware that .6% is not a problemThey are 100% aware that the problem is psychosomatic.When are you going to realize that if you chose to do "Anything" that there is going to be cause and effect in play. You can't ask anyone to protect you from a situation you chose and selected. You can type all you want here and there. But you are changing ZERO.Repeat..............you are changing zero.

Further replies should be considered inflammatory and categorized as spam.

How is it inhumane that nobody can escape his or her published record? The same applies to everybody except for autocrats with the power to create a safe space that extends tens of thousands of square miles.

IMDb partially updated their policy, allowing trans people to remove their deadnames from the birth name category of the biography section of the site. The policy change applies to cases where they were not widely known to the public by their deadname. There is still a lot that needs to be changed with how IMDb treats trans performers and entertainment professionals, but this is a start.

Marco, not a fan of "1984" used as a comparison in modern times. Moreover, not a fan of surname Orwell associated exclusively with dystopia: man was an incredible writer, but people remember one book by him and fewer ever read anything else he wrote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_OrwellEric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950),better known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist and essayist, journalist and critic, whose work is characterised by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism,and outspoken support of democratic socialism.

As a writer, Orwell produced literary criticism and poetry,fiction and polemical journalism; and is best known for the allegorical novella Animal Farm (1945)and the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).

Yes, I'm talking about that Orwell. That "best known" is a dangerous thing as it often gets people to think that it's the only important thing the person has ever done. I personally think that Orwell's essays are just as valuable as 1984, if not more valuable.

IMDb aims to be the most comprehensive and reliable source of
information on movies, TV and celebrities. We are committed to accuracy
and it is our longstanding policy not to alter or remove correct
factual information from our records. If you notice an error or omission
in our data, please submit a correction or deletion via the "Edit page"
button located at the bottom of every name and title page and our staff
will be happy to review it and make all applicable changes. We have a
guide to adding data here.

However, IMDb will not remove accurate information. If you try to
delete an item of data which is accurate, your delete will not be
processed. Please be aware that attempts to delete accurate data will
count against your overall accuracy rating and may result in all your
submissions taking longer to process along with additional proof
requirements.

Also please allow sufficient time for any deletes to be processed. See this page for more details about our data processing times.

Why does someone's deadname need to be accessible on a film database? IMDb also doesn't allow private medical information, or rumors about sexual orientation, to be published in the trivia section of the site.

We've already answered that question in this thread or others, Emma Arpin. There are a few things that everybody has: name, birth date, birth place, biological mother and biological father. (Maybe feral children are the only who do not have names.) These are basic biopic things. They cannot be conflated with private medical information or lifestyle rumors.

(Almost) everybody who ever lived was given a name around the time they were born. This is called someone's birth name because it was the name they've been given at birth. A database stores and publishes data about a certain topic. IMDb is a database about films, series and video games and the people who worked on them. ﻿Therefore, IMDb lists, among other things, the names of said people as well as the birth names of these people.

(Almost) everybody who ever lived was given a name around the time they were born. This is called someone's birth name because it was the name they've been given at birth. A database stores and publishes data about a certain topic. IMDb is a database about films, series and video games and the people who worked on them. ﻿Therefore, IMDb lists, among other things, the names of said people as well as the birth names of these people.

"It used to be..." Well, there have always been exceptions. The accurate information has to be relevant and non-abusive; possibly reasonably interesting as well. This is why there is a guideline about not posting information about people's children or their favorite colors, how many flower pots sit in the window seals of their houses. I'm glad that IMDb avoids what is known on Wikipedia as "instruction creep", but it is somewhat inevitable. Neither one is an indiscriminate repository of information.

Yeah, but these exceptions are there because they are so general that they don't really tell us anything about the person. Favorite colors and the like are shared with literally millions of people, it's hardly unique.﻿ Specific information about a person (for example, a name a person was given around the time they were born) is extremely unique and can help identification along. (especially for people with a common name and no photos on IMDb).

Yeah, but these exceptions are there because they are so general that they don't really tell us anything about the person. Favorite colors and the like are shared with literally millions of people, it's hardly unique.﻿ Specific information about a person (for example, a name a person was given around the time they were born) is extremely unique and can help identification along. (especially for people with a common name and no photos on IMDb).

Right, but I cannot really praise IMDb for reliability. It is crowd-sourced after all and, for many, kind of difficult to properly update. IMDb is renown for being the most comprehensive film database (quantity) the world has ever known, not necessarily the finest film database (quality).

Amazon may be that reason. However, of course, what got Amazon interested in the first place is the pioneering aspect of IMDb, as there may have been nothing else like it (on the Internet) back in the early 1990s. Of course, I'm sure Blockbuster, Home Box Office, TV Guide, the studios, the cinemas and the libraries had somewhat extensive internal databases of movie information to accompany movie copies in stock, but they never really bothered to capture and publish the relationships among movies, casts, crews, other participants thereof and brands in a meaningful way. Thus, as it stands, IMDb is one of the only outlets that makes it easy (or at least easy to have the opportunity) to track professionals like stunt performers, set designers, prop designers, costume designers, special effects artists, makeup artists, lighting technicians, sound technicians, publicists etc. They may all get credit but not recognition the way that storytellers, directors, actors, cinematographers, musicians, singers, poets and animators and executive producers do.